I've been away from diving for a decade. What major discoveries have occurred in dive medicine and decompression theory since I left?

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

mathematics

Registered
Messages
11
Reaction score
20
Location
Florida
See the thread title. Last thing I remember, before aforementioned ten year coma, was the study showing that Pyle stops tended to skew outcomes towards DCS. Now, I come back and nobody's using VPM-B or RGBM, and we're all doing Buhlmann again, so clearly something happened. Did we answer any big questions? Did we knock down any big hypotheses? Did we see any new pathologies? Why is Rubicon Foundation still down? Haven't they been down for a decade now? I'm so confused, so please confuse me better. Thanks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OTF
Hemlines go up, then they go down. Wind blows east, then blows west. Deep stops are good, then they’re bad. Why?
Answers do exist, you can draw a line of causation between events if you look close enough, but sometimes the most correct explanation is “just because”.
 
See the thread title. Last thing I remember, before aforementioned ten year coma, was the study showing that Pyle stops tended to skew outcomes towards DCS. Now, I come back and nobody's using VPM-B or RGBM, and we're all doing Buhlmann again, so clearly something happened. Did we answer any big questions? Did we knock down any big hypotheses? Did we see any new pathologies? Why is Rubicon Foundation still down? Haven't they been down for a decade now? I'm so confused, so please confuse me better. Thanks.
The major advance in the past 10 years is that we now all use our midi-chlorian levels to plan deco. Those of us with high counts are able to safely run much shorter deco schedules.

 
Deep stops out.
Bubble models out.
Bulhmann in.
Gradient Factors around 50:75 in.
Gas densities in.
Helium scarce and very expensive.
Rebreathers in.
Deep open circuit out.
Ratio deco out (except for some laggards)
Shearwater computers are the standard.
 
I think you pretty much "inherit" a particular decompression algorithm when you buy your dive computer. Different manufacturers use different algorithms. Since there aren't any agreed upon standards, its pretty much up to software programs and the dive computer manufacturer's decisions on algorithms. As usual, if you have a preference, caveat emptor.

This 2018 study compares algorithms and might answer so9me of your questions:


If you use tables instead of a computer, you inherit the algorithms used to develop the tables. NOAA, PADI, NAUI, CMAS

It seems to me that a great deal of the discusion is driven by the technical diving, deep and planned decompression diving community which has gone to Buhlmann because you can tailor or optimise the model's gradient factors to fit your planned dive profile.

The average recreational divers I see here in Bonaire basically set their computer's O2 fraction, O2 pp limit, decide if they want to use conservative settings, follow their dive computers and stick to NDL's. Their understanding of which algorithm, gradient factors, RGBM, etc just isn't there. Dive computers have made it pretty much "monkey-bannana" for recreational NDL divers.

here's some reading material on where the USN and the Swedish military are. As usual, the USN used a different algorythm, tested with actual divers, and used empirical data to derive their latest tables.

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA561928.pdf
 

Back
Top Bottom